Discussion Art Direction for the new trilogy- what do you want to see?

Squibs and real explosions everywhere in the podrace and all spaceship battles. The real magic with computers was in the seamless compositing of it all.

 

I want them to film it on the moon and film all of the space battles in actual outer space. Although we might accidently start WWIII.

 

Mann those cinematics are sooo good. Those feel more like Star Wars than most of the prequels. I mean obviously they are "remixed" SW scenarios, but it feels right. Especially the lightsaber duels which feel hard-hitting.

I want something that's more comfortably OT. Definitely not the polished sheen of the PT.

 

I didn't know that half of the stuff I thought was CGI in the PT was actually models until the DVD and BD releases. It happens.

I don't have any problem with the shots you shared. They represent a combination of matte painting, sets, and in many cases models, just put together digitally instead of optically. There was just a lot more model and matte insertion in the PT, because of the goal of having a larger scope and a different tone.

I refuse to believe that an entire generation of graphic artists need to throw their macs out of a window and break out a literal canvas and optical printer.

On the actual subject of the thread, it's understandable that we'd want "comfortable Star Wars," but there's a difference in storytelling between what the audience wants and what the audience needs, you know? The art style of the ST should branch out from the OT look in unpredictable ways, as required by the story.

 

I go back and forth depending on my mood, but overall I like the "sweeping, romantic vistas and luscious colors" of the prequels best. But I vote let J.J. and company give me something new.

So give me Flash Gordon, give me art-deco, give me Naboo, but make it new.

(Yes, I got Franks, and Pork & Beans. Always bust the new routines.)

Yep.

 

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/5/57/TheedAttack.png

I would LOVE to revisit Naboo, or at least a planet that is similarly gourgeously. One of my favorite locals from the entire saga.

 

I think that the only "problem" for me with the CG in the PT isn't that it wasn't realistic looking, it's that it didn't quite behave correctly. Allow me to explain.

In the OT, since making effects shots and murals was a more difficult undertaking, the camera usually slowed down on those background shots. They stayed still for the most part, or used very subtle movements. The camera stayed still and allowed us to watch the actors. We felt comfortable in them. Maybe because of technology limitations, but it felt like the camera in the PT was 'always on the move'. It was always spinning, and rotating, and things were always zipping by. When I'm looking at objects in real life with my own two eyes, my vision isn't constantly twirling around. And when my eyes do dart back and forth, my brain overcompensates and balances things out.

Our brains are really good at seeing things when they stick out as abnormal. And as well painted as some of those PT CG murals, effects or characters look, my brain just tells me over and over again...that this isn't real.

So I think my only 'want' would be to actually take it down a notch. Let the characters, whether real or CG-made, act...exist realistically.

Just my two cents.

 

Amen brother! People (usually the PT hater) say that the CGI is so bad in the PT, except for that parts that they couldn't tell were CGI, or real in the first place LOL!! For the longest time after AOTC, people were talking about acquiring or making Clone Trooper costumes. To a lot of peoples surprise, they never actually made a Clone Trooper costume. It was only after that people realized there was no apparent way to put on the helmet or the armor did they realize it was 100% CGI..

 

So you need static shots or GTFO? Brian DePalma movies freak you out? Robert Altman? Tony Scott? Paul Greengrass? JJ Abrams?

 

Hey man, you're coming on WAY too strong here. "GTFO?" as you say. I think my post was pretty mildly written and I even ended it with "my two cents". I don't tend to think in stark absolutes, and I certainly didn't say everything has to be static or I'm going home sad face. If anything I think I eluded to only slowing things down a tad so that we can focus on the CG work and characters. So don't be so quick to put words in my mouth or get upset at my post.. And besides, I'm stating an opinion for ART direction. That's all. Art is subjective and the thread ask for what you want to see.

I'm an illustrator and concept artist, so I do have a strong opinion on effects work. But that's all it is; my opinion.

 

Sorry for the hyperbole, but I just don't get your point. Star Wars has always been defined by movement, even in OT effects. It's not like the Endor battle shots or the Asteroid Field aren't constantly in motion. That, along with the quick cutting, is what defined JJ's "Star Wars-izing" of his Star Trek. It's only natural that Lucas, like any other filmmaker, would not want the intended energy of his camerawork to be encumbered by technology.

 

I get it. I got it. I know it's good. The rhymes I write? You wish you would.

That said, I'd love to see Joe Johnston get involved. And some Ian McCaig too...